1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Nuclear War with the DPRK

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2017 10:30
 

If they launch at Guam, we should launch back. Saying they plan to hit 20 miles offshore is irrelevant. You can’t tell whether it’s going to hit or ‘miss’ until late into the re-entry, since minor adjustments to the path during the sub-orbital or even early re-entry can easily shift your impact point 20 miles.

I’m ready for nuclear war with the DPRK. Are you?

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2404
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
10 August 2017 10:33
 

no.

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  110
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2017 13:47
 

If nuclear weapons are used, the US loses regardless. There can be no ‘winner’ in a nuclear scenario.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2017 15:30
 
proximacentauri - 10 August 2017 01:47 PM

If nuclear weapons are used, the US loses regardless. There can be no ‘winner’ in a nuclear scenario.

We’re not in a mutually assured destruction scenario with NK, and we should not desire such an outcome.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  6580
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
10 August 2017 18:33
 

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2017 22:56
 
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16306
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 August 2017 23:08
 
Igawa - 10 August 2017 10:56 PM
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

That costs more.

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  6580
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
11 August 2017 07:34
 
Igawa - 10 August 2017 10:56 PM
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

Not sure if you’re being ironic or straight-forward.  We’ve seen so many, many examples of tragic “collateral damage” around “surgical strikes.”  And it’s easy to miss the prime target altogether when intelligence is sketchy.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
11 August 2017 08:09
 
hannahtoo - 11 August 2017 07:34 AM
Igawa - 10 August 2017 10:56 PM
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

Not sure if you’re being ironic or straight-forward.  We’ve seen so many, many examples of tragic “collateral damage” around “surgical strikes.”  And it’s easy to miss the prime target altogether when intelligence is sketchy.

I’m being straightforward. There is a difference in morality between an effortful surgical strike and intentionally targeting civilians. I’m sure you can recognize that.

NK is still more than happy to use the latter as a strategic asset. We haven’t deliberately targeted a population center since… WW2, right? (maybe I’m forgetting something)

 
jdrnd
 
Avatar
 
 
jdrnd
Total Posts:  5899
Joined  25-08-2009
 
 
 
11 August 2017 11:06
 

Unfortunately its Ghengis Khan vs Atila the Hun.

Its going to be a bloody mess.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  6580
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
11 August 2017 15:17
 
Igawa - 11 August 2017 08:09 AM
hannahtoo - 11 August 2017 07:34 AM
Igawa - 10 August 2017 10:56 PM
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

Not sure if you’re being ironic or straight-forward.  We’ve seen so many, many examples of tragic “collateral damage” around “surgical strikes.”  And it’s easy to miss the prime target altogether when intelligence is sketchy.

I’m being straightforward. There is a difference in morality between an effortful surgical strike and intentionally targeting civilians. I’m sure you can recognize that.

NK is still more than happy to use the latter as a strategic asset. We haven’t deliberately targeted a population center since… WW2, right? (maybe I’m forgetting something)

Unfortunately there are a lot of oopsies in targeting.  Like, oops, we bombed a wedding party.  Or oops, we bombed a hospital.  Surgical in the sense of, oops, we took out the appendix instead of the gallbladder.  It took 10 years for the U.S. to find and kill Osama bin Laden.  Estimates differ in the number of Afghans who died as a result of the war, but it ranges between many tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.  And that was conventional war.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  934
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
11 August 2017 15:40
 
Igawa - 11 August 2017 08:09 AM

I’m being straightforward. There is a difference in morality between an effortful surgical strike and intentionally targeting civilians. I’m sure you can recognize that.

NK is still more than happy to use the latter as a strategic asset. We haven’t deliberately targeted a population center since… WW2, right? (maybe I’m forgetting something)

Yes, you’ve forgotten something; war is not a video game. A “surgical strike” in this case will cause a domino effect of destruction.

The quotes below from an article by Krishnadev Calamur, from the Atlantic website: http://tinyurl.com/y8luknpx

There is, of course, the possibility that Kim orders North Korea to strike near Guam as early as next week, as his military said in great detail that it could. If those missiles land in Guam’s waters, the U.S. response could be conventional (non-nuclear) in nature. The U.S. military has a large presence in South Korea (28,500 troops) and Japan (54,000), and could easily target North Korea’s command-and-control capability, its nuclear programs, and its missile launchers. The consequences of such a response are likely to be catastrophic not only on North Korea but its neighbors: Not only are there more than 70,000 U.S. troops within the reach of North Korea’s short- and medium-range missiles, nearly half of South Korea’s 50 million people live about 100 miles from the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas. The loss of life would be horrific.

Violence should always be the last resort. Trump hasn’t even tried diplomacy.

 

 
 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
11 August 2017 15:42
 
hannahtoo - 11 August 2017 03:17 PM
Igawa - 11 August 2017 08:09 AM
hannahtoo - 11 August 2017 07:34 AM
Igawa - 10 August 2017 10:56 PM
hannahtoo - 10 August 2017 06:33 PM

The people of NK are virtual prisoners, so bombing their country would be a killing of innocents.

Bomb the jailers, not the people then.

Not sure if you’re being ironic or straight-forward.  We’ve seen so many, many examples of tragic “collateral damage” around “surgical strikes.”  And it’s easy to miss the prime target altogether when intelligence is sketchy.

I’m being straightforward. There is a difference in morality between an effortful surgical strike and intentionally targeting civilians. I’m sure you can recognize that.

NK is still more than happy to use the latter as a strategic asset. We haven’t deliberately targeted a population center since… WW2, right? (maybe I’m forgetting something)

Unfortunately there are a lot of oopsies in targeting.  Like, oops, we bombed a wedding party.  Or oops, we bombed a hospital.  Surgical in the sense of, oops, we took out the appendix instead of the gallbladder.  It took 10 years for the U.S. to find and kill Osama bin Laden.  Estimates differ in the number of Afghans who died as a result of the war, but it ranges between many tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.  And that was conventional war.

You’re half correct. It was a guerrilla war, not a conventional war, where the line between civilian and combatant is blurry and they are often intermingled. North Korea has a large traditional army with traditional organization and tactics. They have considerable material and manpower separated completely from the civilian populace.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  374
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
11 August 2017 15:59
 
Cheshire Cat - 11 August 2017 03:40 PM
Igawa - 11 August 2017 08:09 AM

I’m being straightforward. There is a difference in morality between an effortful surgical strike and intentionally targeting civilians. I’m sure you can recognize that.

NK is still more than happy to use the latter as a strategic asset. We haven’t deliberately targeted a population center since… WW2, right? (maybe I’m forgetting something)

Yes, you’ve forgotten something; war is not a video game. A “surgical strike” in this case will cause a domino effect of destruction.

The quotes below from an article by Krishnadev Calamur, from the Atlantic website: http://tinyurl.com/y8luknpx

There is, of course, the possibility that Kim orders North Korea to strike near Guam as early as next week, as his military said in great detail that it could. If those missiles land in Guam’s waters, the U.S. response could be conventional (non-nuclear) in nature. The U.S. military has a large presence in South Korea (28,500 troops) and Japan (54,000), and could easily target North Korea’s command-and-control capability, its nuclear programs, and its missile launchers. The consequences of such a response are likely to be catastrophic not only on North Korea but its neighbors: Not only are there more than 70,000 U.S. troops within the reach of North Korea’s short- and medium-range missiles, nearly half of South Korea’s 50 million people live about 100 miles from the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that separates the two Koreas. The loss of life would be horrific.

Violence should always be the last resort. Trump hasn’t even tried diplomacy.

That is false. Before every war, there is nothing but diplomacy. If Kim responds to it by going to war, then that’s what happens. A fat lot of good diplomacy has done, by the way. Did a great job of kicking the can 60 years down the road.

As for the people, yes, there will be death. It’s a good idea to not inflate your expectations though. Those 70,000 Americans and 25 million Koreans aren’t going to die just because they live near the DMZ. And on that note, if NK actually do deliberately attack the civilian population of SK as they’ve threatened, then they deserve to exist as an independent state even less than they do already.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  934
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
11 August 2017 16:19
 
Igawa - 11 August 2017 03:59 PM

That is false. Before every war, there is nothing but diplomacy. If Kim responds to it by going to war, then that’s what happens. A fat lot of good diplomacy has done, by the way. Did a great job of kicking the can 60 years down the road.

As for the people, yes, there will be death. It’s a good idea to not inflate your expectations though. Those 70,000 Americans and 25 million Koreans aren’t going to die just because they live near the DMZ. And on that note, if NK actually do deliberately attack the civilian population of SK as they’ve threatened, then they deserve to exist as an independent state even less than they do already.

Your cavalier attitude about letting people die is striking. What is an acceptable number of deaths to you? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? A million? The death toll will be a crap shoot; but it will be devastating.

Diplomacy requires subtlety in thinking, intelligence and compromise; qualities sorely lacking in Trump. Regardless, it needs to be tried. In a situation where so many lives are at stake, diplomacy has to be employed, no matter what has happened in the past. To do otherwise is a crime against humanity.

 

 
 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  110
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
11 August 2017 16:23
 
Igawa - 10 August 2017 03:30 PM
proximacentauri - 10 August 2017 01:47 PM

If nuclear weapons are used, the US loses regardless. There can be no ‘winner’ in a nuclear scenario.

We’re not in a mutually assured destruction scenario with NK, and we should not desire such an outcome.

Of course not. The ability of NK to pull off a successful nuclear strike this is still very much in question. But the US - and the World - loses if Nukes get deployed. The US, still the de-facto world leader, must prevent their usage by either country. The US and the World would face a tremendous loss in world stability going forward. Instead of unthinkable, resorting to nuclear war by other nuclear capable nations would become easier after the US resorts to it. Considering the OK corral-like threats and tweets from Trump, no doubt our Allies and enemies would blame the US for destabilizing the world with nuclear war. Trump should be strategizing how to neutralize Un and NK with our high command Military and with our Allies. Instead, he’s projecting that he’s as unstable and willing to US nuclear munitions as Kim Jong is.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›